MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185079129 · doi:10.2196/24352

Using Acoustic Speech Patterns From Smartphones to Investigate Mood Disorders: Scoping Review

2021· article· en· W3185079129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olivia Flanagan, Amy Hai Yan Chan, Partha S. Roop, Frederick Sundram

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AucklandPennsylvania State University
KeywordsMoodCINAHLPsycINFOMood disordersMEDLINEModalitiesPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineComputer scienceApplied psychologyPsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mood disorders are commonly underrecognized and undertreated, as diagnosis is reliant on self-reporting and clinical assessments that are often not timely. Speech characteristics of those with mood disorders differs from healthy individuals. With the wide use of smartphones, and the emergence of machine learning approaches, smartphones can be used to monitor speech patterns to help the diagnosis and monitoring of mood disorders. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to synthesize research on using speech patterns from smartphones to diagnose and monitor mood disorders. METHODS: Literature searches of major databases, Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL, initially identified 832 relevant articles using the search terms "mood disorders", "smartphone", "voice analysis", and their variants. Only 13 studies met inclusion criteria: use of a smartphone for capturing voice data, focus on diagnosing or monitoring a mood disorder(s), clinical populations recruited prospectively, and in the English language only. Articles were assessed by 2 reviewers, and data extracted included data type, classifiers used, methods of capture, and study results. Studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: Studies showed that voice data alone had reasonable accuracy in predicting mood states and mood fluctuations based on objectively monitored speech patterns. While a fusion of different sensor modalities revealed the highest accuracy (97.4%), nearly 80% of included studies were pilot trials or feasibility studies without control groups and had small sample sizes ranging from 1 to 73 participants. Studies were also carried out over short or varying timeframes and had significant heterogeneity of methods in terms of the types of audio data captured, environmental contexts, classifiers, and measures to control for privacy and ambient noise. CONCLUSIONS: Approaches that allow smartphone-based monitoring of speech patterns in mood disorders are rapidly growing. The current body of evidence supports the value of speech patterns to monitor, classify, and predict mood states in real time. However, many challenges remain around the robustness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of such an approach and further work is required to build on current research and reduce heterogeneity of methodologies as well as clinical evaluation of the benefits and risks of such approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207